AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.A. Desai, J.—The State on a dispute over the land initiated proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Special Executive Magistrate came to the conclusion that at the time of dispute the applicant Ganpati Kundalika Dubai and others were in possession of the suit field and directed to handover the paddy crop to the petitioners.
Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate preferred Criminal Revision Application. The Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order, dated 21.12.1987 reversed the order of the Magistrate. Hence this Revision.
Heard Mr. Patil at length. According to him, the Additional Sessions Judge has misdirected himself while deciding the issue. He urged that the only question in the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code was that whether the petitioner was in possession of the suit land at the relevant time? However, the Sessions Judge has gone into the question of the title of the petitioner and, therefore, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in possession of the land at the relevant time.
It is mainly asserted by the petitioners that they have derived the possession of the suit filed on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour in 1962 by the Vendor-Landlord of the suit filed. The Sessions Judge has observed that the sale deed was bad in law as held by the competent Court. Besides this, it is mainly observed that the respondents were the tenants inducted by the Vendor way back in 1957 and they were holding possession since then. This aspect is not seriously under challenge.
In view of this, it is quite apparent that the tenant respondents were in lawful possession of the land in dispute in the capacity as tenant. In view of this, putting the petitioner in possession in 1962 in pursuance of the sale deed, cannot be accepted. In view of the tenancy the Vendor cannot validly transfer the possession to the Petitioner purchaser.
The reasonings as adopted by the Sessions Judge are just and proper.
I do not find any patent or material illegality which warrants interference with the order passed by the Sessions Judge in these proceedings u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Revision is, therefore, dismissed.
The Stay stands vacated.